|
Es wird über die Rechte an der Adultshop-Domain gestritten. Den Aktionären bleibt hier wirklich nichts erspart bzw. ihnen wird etwas für ihr Geld geboten - wie man`s nimmt ... Value in adultshop name, court told 05.11.2002 INTERNAL documents at listed company AdultShop.com had put a $500,000 valuation on an internet domain name it subsequently secured in irregular circumstances, a lawyer for the former owner alleged in the Federal Court yesterday. Lawyer Patrick O`Neal also said documents obtained from AdultShop.com through court processes showed the site adultshop.com.au had been ranked at number 14 among similar sites in Australia. Mr O`Neal said AdultShop.com had decided to offer $100,000 for the adultshop.com.au domain name, whereas the Canberra-based domain owner Capital Webworks was asking $1 million for the name. "The value is obvious from the internal correspondence of AdultShop.com," said Mr O`Neal, who was representing Capital before Justice Robert Nicholson yesterday. He was in court asking Justice Nicholson to overturn an order he made in February this year that Capital Webworks should lodge $35,000 with the court as security for defence costs that internet domain name registry company Melbourne IT could incur. Melbourne IT is a co-defendant with AdultShop in litigation that arises from alleged events between February and April 2000 in which Capital`s registration of adultshop.com.au was not renewed. AdultShop.com managing director Malcolm Day said in May 2000 his company secured the name for a $285 registration fee. Mr O`Neal said yesterday Capital had registered the name in March 1999 and operated a business on the site from July that year. He said Melbourne IT had allowed his client to register the name and develop a business then allowed the goodwill to be given to someone else in irregular circumstances. Capital`s case had been strengthened since the original costs order by material obtained in the pre-trial discovery process and provided a basis for a claim of negligence and misleading and deceptive conduct, he said. The case was a matter of public interest because the future of commerce was seen as being on the internet and there was an issue of whether a domain registry was entitled to merely pull the plug on a business, he said. The costs order could stop Capital`s case in its tracks. But Melbourne IT lawyer Craig Colvin said trademark and copyright law rather than the registration of a domain name determined an entitlement to trade under a particular name. Mr Colvin said nothing identified by Mr O`Neal represented a material change in circumstances warranting the judge reconsidering his original security of costs order. Justice Nicholson reserved his decision. Quelle: http://www.thewest.com.au/20021105/business/tw-business-home… Weitere australische Nachrichtenseiten: http://www.Australia-Pool.com |
|
| aus der Diskussion: | Adultshop |
| Autor (Datum des Eintrages): | Big-Apple (05.11.02 01:37:25) |
| Beitrag: | 19 von 174 (ID:7761972) |
| Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreetONLINE | |